STOCKTON – In the inevitable schism between police departments, public officials, community leaders and those who are the sharpest critics of law-enforcement officers, there is a single small, electronic, high-tech device upon which it seems almost everybody agrees.

Body cameras — electronic video and audio recorders that clip onto officers’ uniforms — in recent years have come into vogue for many law-enforcement agencies in the United States and other countries.

They first were introduced on a full-force basis in San Joaquin County earlier this year by the Manteca Police Department. If Stockton police Chief Eric Jones has his way, there will come a time not too far into the future when all of his patrol officers also will be wearing them, too. Body cameras already are in use in Stockton, but the roughly 360-man force at this point has fewer than 10 of them.

“The camera is there for everybody’s interest, for the officers as well as the community,” Jones said this week. “It captures footage for everybody’s interests. … There’s a lot of evidence-based data out there that tends to show why they’re an advantage.”

The use of body cams by police officers has been a particularly hot topic nationally amid the ongoing violence and civil unrest following the Aug. 9 police killing of an unarmed teenager in Ferguson, Mo.

But the issue is not new in Stockton. Mayor Anthony Silva has endorsed the use of body cams at recent City Council meetings, and during a public-comment session last week, two young critics of the Stockton police asked the department to begin using them.

“Body cams would pay off for the people of the city,” one of those speakers, 20-year-old Daniel Ferreira, said this week during an interview. “I’m not worried about the gangsters in Stockton. I’m worried about the cops. They can do whatever they want. Who’s going to believe me over them?”

Ferriera’s friend, 20-year-old Michael Vallete, added, “If (police) had a camera on their chest it would tell both stories … ours and theirs.”

Though Jones clearly differs with the young men’s assessment of some of his officers, he said he does agree with the benefits of the cameras. Jones said they have the potential to provide evidence and possible exoneration for officers in cases where citizens allege police brutality.

“I do believe that for police trust to continue to exist and build within our community, for accountability, for the officers’ protection as well from false accusations, it discourages misconduct by the community and by officers,” Jones said.

Bobby Bivens, who heads Stockton’s chapter of the NAACP, said he believes the cameras “would cause law-enforcement officers to monitor and manage their behavior better and be more courteous, more respectful and be better police officers.”

“I believe the current mentality of some officers is they can do whatever they want to do,” Bivens added.

But Jones, who has been studying the issue since the start of 2014, said that before body cameras can become a standard part of police equipment in Stockton, several hurdles must be overcome.

The cameras cost about $400 apiece, so the outlay for Stockton’s police force, which is budgeted for 405 officers this year, could surpass $160,000. The cost of storing the reams of digital data produced by the cameras would be a significant and ongoing cost, Jones added. He said he is uncertain whether a portion of the city’s public-safety sales taxes legally could be used to purchase some of the cameras.

Still, money may not be the steepest obstacle, even in a city still awaiting its exit from Chapter 9 bankruptcy. Jones said before any wide-scale purchase, the city must reach agreement with the union that represents officers on how and when the cameras would be used. Then, he said, the department will have to draft a policy for their use.

Kathryn Nance, who heads the Stockton Police Officers’ Association, said she recognizes the potential benefits of the cameras but also has reservations.

“It cuts down on complaints,” she said. “It’s no longer somebody’s word against the officers. But there are negatives, also. The camera doesn’t show the totality of the circumstance … It’s a piece of evidence that shows one small portion.”

Statistics produced by forces around the country show the presence of the cameras in some cases has been followed by a steep drop in the number of complaints against officers for the use of excessive force. Darren Wilson, the officer in Ferguson, Mo., was not wearing a body camera when 18-year-old Michael Brown was killed.

Stockton’s Mobile Field Force, whose main purpose is to maintain order at public protests, for months has been using eight body cameras purchased by the police department. Jones said they “provide protection for officers and the public” in “tense” and “high-liability situations.”

In Manteca, that city’s department issued body cams to its roughly 40 patrol officers in May. Tony Souza, the lieutenant who is in charge of the cameras, said they have proved to be a valuable tool.

Manteca’s five-page policy for their use requires officers to activate the cameras “during all enforcement stops, field interrogation situations or any other time the member reasonably believes that a recording of an on-duty contact may be useful.”

The policy also governs privacy issues for police and the public and allows officers to delay switching on the cameras when they feel they are in immediate danger and that doing so would compromise their safety.

Souza said he believes the cameras, despite their cost, have the potential to save cities money in the long run. Earlier this year, Manteca agreed to pay out a $2.2-million settlement in a wrongful death case involving the family of a man killed by one of the city’s officers.

In that case, the victim’s shooting was captured by a dashboard camera. But Souza said in other cases a body camera could absolve an innocent officer.

“When we get sued, the amount of money paid out in some of these judgments or what we pay to settle is a lot more than what we paid for these devices,” Souza said. “We’re looking at protecting ourselves.”

Contact reporter Roger Phillips at (209) 546-8299 or rphillips@recordnet.com. Follow him at recordnet.com/phillipsblog and on Twitter @rphillipsblog.